Transgender - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

From time to time in this particular conversation your rhetoric has bordered on victim blaming, 'bogeyman du jour' be damned.

See, you're at it regardless. So long as my comment can be linked to victim blaming, it's been safely defused.

That's no way to advance a discussion.

And I am not blaming the victim, ever. Carefully read my posts and you'll see that's the case.

Let's reverse the conversation a bit. You have a trans person sitting in front of you, asking for your help in campaigning for trans rights. They themselves have suffered bigotry for being trans; they had to fight to obtain the ability to medically transition (let's say they're from the UK, as there's a decent example available) as an adult.

They are asking for your help. You want to make the same arguments you're making here. Go.

Sure. I'd say "oh that must be awful for you."

If they ask for my help, I'd tell them I'd do what I can, and then I'd think about doing it.

I might do something about it, I might get really exercised by it, or other matters might soon take precedence, because that's how life works for every single one of us.

Every time you see a homeless person begging, by their very act of begging, they're asking you for help. Do you immediately put them into housing?

There seems to be a complete denial on these pages that compassion triage is something every one of us practises every single day. People acting like you'd have to be some sort of monster to recognise that we all have a sliding scale of empathy. Maybe everyone should read a bit of basic psychology.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

These people are called hypocrites.

It's a small step from this to denying other people rights based on attributes they were born with.

Think about it.

Check out this bloke who is a Catholic and dined with the President, and hung around one of the biggest music artists in the world:



That's where this ends up. No doubt.

No, that's where this can end up.

The ol' slippery slope argument eh?

Thought we lefties sneered at that.

You seem to think I'm defending religious hypocrites.

I'm saying these are the people that populate the world we are trying to effect change in them.

Great. Brand them hypocrites. And it'll do five-eighths of bugger all to improve the lot of trans people.

Meanwhile, the world burns....

 

[Cap]

I don’t know. You’d have to ask them.

But as I said numerous times already, I suspect they’re not worked up about it at all, they’re just cynically triggering progressives. With dismayingly predictable results.

I think you can tell by who liked your post that isn't true.

I suggest your answer is a way to avoid the reality of the what the answer really is.

 

[Chief]

And therefore because the MAGA types impact others negatively that is the distinction! Thank you!

So if you knew that why argue around it until you get the wording you want?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I think you can tell by who liked your post that isn't true.

I suggest your answer is a way to avoid the reality of the what the answer really is.

Funny, I don’t care who likes my posts, and that sort of witch hunting is an admission of intellectual defeat.

I’d suggest I’m one of the few people on this thread not completely under the thrall of identity indoctrination.

Here’s a tip for you moving forward -

Read what people post. Ensure you’ve carefully read every word. Think about what their words say. Resist the urge to automatically file it away somewhere safe because it sounds like something that someone you’ve othered in your mind might say.

 

[Chief]

someone you’ve othered

You're feeling "othered"? Alienated? Unacceptable?

 

[Gethelred]

See, you're at it regardless. So long as my comment can be linked to victim blaming, it's been safely defused.

That's no way to advance a discussion.

And ignoring the last substantial post I've made in response to you in this thread is?

And I am not blaming the victim, ever. Carefully read my posts and you'll see that's the case.

Notice my use of the word, 'bordering'.

You have several times tried to make a distinction between what you see as a more genuine prejudice and prejudice against trans people. If this is not a fair summary of your position, correct me.

Sure. I'd say "oh that must be awful for you."

... not dismissive at all. No sir.

If they ask for my help, I'd tell them I'd do what I can, and then I'd think about doing it.

I might do something about it, I might get really exercised by it, or other matters might soon take precedence, because that's how life works for every single one of us.

Every time you see a homeless person begging, by their very act of begging, they're asking you for help. Do you immediately put them into housing?

A while back a poster who has since left this forum tried this particular schtik on when discussing refugees with me. That person tried to tell me that, if I was unwilling to house refugees in my own home, I was both a) a hypocrite for not 'living by my supposed ideals', and b) in it only for myself because 'do as I say, not as I do'.

This is just as silly now as it was when they pulled it on. There are degrees of allyship, and not everyone need be an activist to be an ally.

There seems to be a complete denial on these pages that compassion triage is something every one of us practises every single day. People acting like you'd have to be some sort of monster to recognise that we all have a sliding scale of empathy. Maybe everyone should read a bit of basic psychology.

Of course we do, but you seem to be taking an additional step: 'I'm playing my Compassion Triage card, and I now don't need to care about this.'

I think you're taking umbrage at the amount of people arguing with you here, rather than what they're saying.

 

[Gralin]

I’d suggest I’m one of the few people on this thread not completely under the thrall of identity indoctrination.

So this right here, this is the arguments used by gender crits.

They talk about gender ideology, like it is something that only exists in the framing of trans issues by trans people and their allies.

That they, the gender crits have no ideology.

This framing ignores the fact that the gender critical movement pushes patriarchal stereotypes as the non ideological position.

It's also done to create the image of their problems with trans people being logical and factual and backed by science.

As opposed to funded and driven by money coming from Fundy Christian groups that previously opposed SSM and abortion rights.

In wider indentity issues it's also the framing used by conservative reactionaries for the same reasons.

 

[Bloods86]

No, I'm not saying trans people should make any concessions whatsoever, except to acknowledge the reality that they are a tiny minority and may not be able to assume the majority is automatically in lockstep with them.

What have you done today about the plight of vulnerable tribal groups of India? Presumably the same as me. Nothing.

I am not saying I would refuse to use particular pronouns if requested by trans people. I'm saying that given the massive disparity of non-trans compared to trans people, some people might think it a bit presumptuous, and are certainly in their rights to not bother.

Yep, I totally agree with every word.

I also suspect it will take 200 years, and meanwhile the planet will be uninhabitable.


I suspect a lot will, um - not so much refuse to accept it - but simply look the other way.

I disagree their views don't have to be respected.

And I don't think they should be immune from criticism, and haven't suggested that.

I don't think the vast majority of trans people are under any illusion on where they stand in society and that many don't give them basic respect.

You treat this like we can only give attention to one topic. That we should overlook everything else in pursuit of one issue. It's a fairly superficial take, and one I'm surprised by. It's fairly clear that political groups who oppose action on climate change, use among other things, but significantly these days, trans people as a means to whip up fear and gain power. They need to be opposed on these issues, not just because it's the right thing to do, but otherwise you're just giving them a free recruiting ground.

What's the point of saving humanity if we lose our humanity while doing it?

There's a difference between acknowledging someone has views that can impact society, and respecting those views. I don't think we need to respect the views of people who deny the validity of someone being trans.

As for vulnerable Indian tribal groups, come on this is a dumb whataboutism that's beneath you. Tribal groups no, but I have been to an orphanage/school in rural Uttarakhand where family volunteered, and supported their work financially. They also helped lepers and others that would otherwise be vulnerable in wider society.

 

[Bloods86]

Nothing in real life is as black and white as people on here are assuming.

Trouble is, those people instantly interpret that fact as some sort of veiled attack on trans rights.

Because you're giving cover for people who want to and do attack trans rights.

Someone denying the validity of a trans person being trans, is contributing to a society where they can be dismissed as liars or unwell, leading to all kinds of personal and legal discrimination. That will (and does) lead to some pretty bad outcomes, including deaths of many.

You've said this denial is to be respected, and suggested that it's not something we should be concerned with. That's why you get the reaction you do.

 

[Cap]

Funny, I don’t care who likes my posts, and that sort of witch hunting is an admission of intellectual defeat.

I’d suggest I’m one of the few people on this thread not completely under the thrall of identity indoctrination.

Here’s a tip for you moving forward -

Read what people post. Ensure you’ve carefully read every word. Think about what their words say. Resist the urge to automatically file it away somewhere safe because it sounds like something that someone you’ve othered in your mind might say.

It's not a witch hunt to merely point out you are avoiding the question

Your whole post is nothing more than word salad to that.

Here's a tip for you, like all public forums, the response of general public is the guide to its acceptability. Like the Covididiots found during covid, when the neo nazis started cheering them on the General public saw through their argument for what it was and rejected it.

 

[Cap]

Because you're giving cover for people who want to and do attack trans rights.

Its similar to the I boo Adam Goodes because I don't like him, not because I'm racist crowd

 

[Bloods86]

Its similar to the I boo Adam Goodes because I don't like him, not because I'm racist crowd

I'd say it's closer to saying - "we should respect the views of those who boo him because his AoTY speech and pointing out racism in the crowd was "divisive", and being concerned with that is over the top. It definitely doesn't link to anything bigger."

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

So if you knew that why argue around it until you get the wording you want?

Sometimes it's easy to think right past an answer. I do it all the time!

 

[Crankyhawk]

So if you knew that why argue around it until you get the wording you want?

I needed assistance to work out the logic.

 

[Chief]

I needed assistance to work out the logic.

I suppose I need that more than I admit

 

[Chief]

How do actual adults fall for this shit?

 

[Gralin]

How do actual adults fall for this s**t?

View attachment 1739435

Keeps the Murdoch outrage machine in content if nothing else

 

[Gralin]

Plus she needs to keep her profile up so she can sell tickets to these sorts of things I guess.

 

[Chief]

Keeps the Murdoch outrage machine in content if nothing else

View attachment 1739449

Shades of Gladys "saviour of straya" magazine covers.

Nek minnut...

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You're feeling "othered"? Alienated? Unacceptable?

No, I'm fine, and thanks for asking. Old enough, ugly enough etc...

But it's never occurred to you that when we reduce everything to Identity, things are then skating perilously close to a reductive and unhelpful Us/Not Us binary?

Inclusiveness is a laudable goal, but have you not noticed that the very act of Inclusion can and might also imply Exclusion?

Have you not noticed that the role of scientifically-absurd food taboos in some religions is not just about extracting loyalty from adherents, but also about setting up a demarcation of Those Inside The Tent/Those Outside The Tent?

That the (tending to pejorative) term "binary" could end up being half of a Binary/Non-Binary divide, which, hilariously, is itself binary?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

And ignoring the last substantial post I've made in response to you in this thread is?

Sorry, I'm having trouble keeping track. Have I ignored one of your posts? Point me to it if so and I'll write a reply.

Notice my use of the word, 'bordering'.

You have several times tried to make a distinction between what you see as a more genuine prejudice and prejudice against trans people. If this is not a fair summary of your position, correct me.

And I noted your careful use of "bordering", and I tried to articulate that saying that something someone says sounds like something that some genuinely crap person says, is not in itself an argument clincher. Yet it is used time and time again on this thread. If you can liken what someone posts to something some effing actual nazi has said, you have safely defused whatever logical qualms the post may have raised within you. It is defused, and you don't have to think about it anymore. Someone says something about trans issues that troubles you. Hey, sounds like they must be TRANSPHOBIC! Hooray, problem solved! (Not referring specifically to you; only that you raised it. But there are some serial offenders on this thread.)

You have several times tried to make a distinction between what you see as a more genuine prejudice and prejudice against trans people. If this is not a fair summary of your position, correct me.

Thank you. I have been attempting to articulate what I think the position of a lot of people towards trans rights is. ie what the battle for trans rights is up against. Again I express my astonishment at how naive some people on here are about hypotheticals; about playing devil's advocate. Have they never done a philosophy class at uni? Do they realise that this is exactly the sort of currency that primary school ethics classes (we all agree they're a good thing, right?) deal in on a weekly basis?

So I'm trying to say that otherwise well-intentioned people (ie, voters) might be quite positively inclined to some causes more than they would be to trans rights, because trans rights hinge entirely on what the trans person reports they feel inside about what they are. That is a hugely unstable basis on which to build any sort of mass movement for change. Those people might reasonably say "this is what they say they feel this week, what's it to be next week?"

Now I'm not saying those people are correct to hold that position. But I daresay if people on here tore themselves away from this forum and actually got out into the real world and spoke to some boring people in the suburbs, some people of a different cultural background, or social class, or age, or geographical location, they might find those positions very common.

So if I am correct that it will be necessary to change the attitudes of these people, who vote (and are not small in number), I'm asking what do people on here propose, other than shouting THEY'RE TRANSPHOBIC!!!

Crickets.

... not dismissive at all. No sir.

No, not dismissive. Exactly the sort of thing I say when I'm expressing my feelings to someone whose plight I empathise with.

A while back a poster who has since left this forum tried this particular schtik on when discussing refugees with me. That person tried to tell me that, if I was unwilling to house refugees in my own home, I was both a) a hypocrite for not 'living by my supposed ideals', and b) in it only for myself because 'do as I say, not as I do'.

This is just as silly now as it was when they pulled it on. There are degrees of allyship, and not everyone need be an activist to be an ally.

It's not silly, it's the reality of how each and every one of us operates in this world.

And I'm not calling you a hypocrite, if that is how you took it. I'm agreeing that "There are degrees of allyship, and not everyone need be an activist to be an ally."

You suggested I would be callous if a trans person asked me for help and I didn't immediately do all I could to help. I pointed out that few of us do that, and gave an example of a similar situation that I'm sure we could all relate to. What does a begging homeless person need? Housing. How many of us been approached by a homeless beggar? All of us. How many have instantly done everything we can to help that homeless beggar find housing? I'm guessing not many.

I'm not saying you're a hypocrite, I'm saying we're all hypocrites. We're all callous in varying degrees.

So I'm stating the bleeding obvious (that we all practise compassion triage every day of our lives) and linking that to the indisputable mathematical fact that trans rights directly concern only a tiny minority. And I'm suggesting the way forward might involve a more realistic appraisal of where trans rights sit on the scale of things for most Australians.

Of course we do, but you seem to be taking an additional step: 'I'm playing my Compassion Triage card, and I now don't need to care about this.'

I'm certainly saying while I don't believe trans people are entitled to anything except the same range of basic rights the rest of us enjoy, it's not a first-order concern for me (never claimed otherwise) and here's the shocking fact that people on here don't want to acknowledge: it's possible that the same goes for the majority of Australians. So what to do?

I think you're taking umbrage at the amount of people arguing with you here, rather than what they're saying.

I'm taking umbrage at the amount of quite unintelligent groupthink being used on here as an attempted counter to my comments. One poster in particular (again, not you) does the cause of trans rights no good at all with their constant deployment of every bit of cheap rhetoric imaginable.

 

[gouki88]

Plus she needs to keep her profile up so she can sell tickets to these sorts of things I guess.

View attachment 1739452

Would quite genuinely rather be drawn and quartered than be here

 

[ShanDog]

Thought about the way pile-ons can happen here, and the nature of it sometimes being about a lack of clarity on what people's stance is during a nuanced, difficult conversation. So I started noting down what I think on all the relevant talking points over the last couple of days, and this might take some heat off SBD Gonzalez ...

So here goes - ShanDog's View on Stuff. I have body armour, so go your hardest.

Trans people exist. There's nothing wrong with that.

In some circumstances, sex matters.

It's fine to say trans women are women in most circumstances, but as above, there are times when sex matters. Those phrases are activist slogans, not facts. In some circumstances, it distorts reality and muddles issues where sex matters.

If some women say they are uncomfortable with trans women in their spaces, we should probably listen.

Celebrating sexuality is weird. Pride seems strange and narcissistic. But that's probably because I am in the majority. Everyone can feel free to do their own thing as long as they are fine with me being indifferent to it.

There's no such thing as being born in the wrong body. Thats spiritual woo and should be laughed at. The science is still being worked on, but studies have suggested trans peoples' brains resemble their natal sex the closest. While the exact differences between male and female brains is also not well understood (aside from general size/grey/white matter distributions), the biggest differences between trans and cis brains are in areas that regulate self-perception, which could explain a lot.

Trans women who have been through puberty as a male - quite obviously - have a physical advantage potential over natal females. Again, the science is still in its early phases, but it's pretty clear that short periods of hormone replacement therapy don't close the gap, and longer periods don't close it completely. Women have fought for a long time to have their sports be taken seriously and it's very ****ing strange that so many people suddenly don't care. Yes, banning trans women at the elite levels of sport really sucks for them and it's understandable why they'd be disappointed. But, with respect, too bad. You can't have everything in life. I wanted to be a racing car driver and then a fighter pilot, but I'm too big. Can't do anything about the cards you've been dealt sometimes, and trans women aren't alone there.

Nobody should have any problem using the desired pronouns of a trans person. The only exception for me is for someone who is so obviously not passing as the gender they are wanting to be referred to. There's a limit to how much I'm willing to nod along with, and everyone's limit is probably a bit different.

They/them pronouns are annoying. I also try to use them but if I forget, I really don't care in the slightest.

Neo-pronouns should be laughed out of the room.

Adolescents are coming out as trans at extremely high rates. No doubt some of that is driven by greater acceptance, but it's naive to think it's only that. There are other factors like social contagion (anyone remember the huge surge in kids who thought they had Tourette's because it became popular on TikTok?), trauma responses, and psychological issues.

Despite claims by TRAs to the contrary, puberty blockers are not totally reversible if they are continued for a long time. They have not been researched in depth for use in gender affirming care, and this was one of the main findings of large reviews that led to rolling back the use of them in countries like the UK and in Scandinavia - some of the best health systems in the world. This should ring alarm bells for everyone.

Despite claims by TRAs, there are in fact many cases of adolescents receiving HRT extremely quickly (mostly in the USA) before an appropriate level of diligence in their assessment takes place. There's also evidence of kids under the age of 18 receiving gender affirming surgeries. Adolescence is a time of great stress and hormonal change. Being so quick to launch into medical treatment is obviously very risky. There are plenty of older gay and lesbian people who will admit they likely would have been "swept up" in the idea of being trans if the movement was around when they were young. I am very concerned that a 12-15 year old going on puberty blockers and potentially having surgery leaves them screwed for life if it turns out to be the wrong thing for them. Our reproductive organs don't grow back as far as I'm aware (and that applies to blocking puberty too).

Finally, the discourse on this issue is the most toxic of any I can think of. There are constant outright lies told by both "sides", which I'm sure many of them fully believe. For example, that without gender affirming care, kids will commit suicide. That's a false dichotomy and the stats on suicide rates among trans people are like the stats on police shootings - deliberately skewed for political purpose in their collection methodologies. Or on the other hand, "They're sexualising our kids!!1!" No, they aren't. Stop.

Supporters need to quit the hyperbole and shaming against anyone who doesn't push the company line with fervour, and opponents needs to drop their hyperbolic, hateful speech and try having some empathy for people.

Problems solved.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I don't think the vast majority of trans people are under any illusion on where they stand in society and that many don't give them basic respect.

You treat this like we can only give attention to one topic. That we should overlook everything else in pursuit of one issue. It's a fairly superficial take, and one I'm surprised by. It's fairly clear that political groups who oppose action on climate change, use among other things, but significantly these days, trans people as a means to whip up fear and gain power. They need to be opposed on these issues, not just because it's the right thing to do, but otherwise you're just giving them a free recruiting ground.

What's the point of saving humanity if we lose our humanity while doing it?

There's a difference between acknowledging someone has views that can impact society, and respecting those views. I don't think we need to respect the views of people who deny the validity of someone being trans.

As for vulnerable Indian tribal groups, come on this is a dumb whataboutism that's beneath you. Tribal groups no, but I have been to an orphanage/school in rural Uttarakhand where family volunteered, and supported their work financially. They also helped lepers and others that would otherwise be vulnerable in wider society.

Well mate you may be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and a few others on here as well, and good on you all.

But the more important fact is that the (mostly disengaged) general public definitely can't.

That is the reality that progressive strategists face every morning, and I think it highly likely that whenever trans issues flare up in another Greens branch, the political hardheads shaping Greens strategy put their heads in their hands and groan.

The biggest obstacle to trans rights is not the small minority of noisy bigots. It's the complete uninterest of 99 out of 100 voters. I don't know what the solution to that is, but I sure as shit haven't seen anything proposed on here since I raised it either.

"What's the point of saving humanity if we lose our humanity while doing it?"

Can you tell that to the people of the Ukraine, coz I sure don't have the guts.

An existential threat is an existential threat.

As to the question about vulnerable Indian tribes, again good on you, but you missed my point. I'm not accusing you of doing nothing, or that you alone are a hypocrite. I'm saying we're all hypocrites. But I seem to be the only hypocrite willing to admit it.